Regular readers are referred to an excellent article written by Michael Allen and posted on his blog titled Ecology of Absence. The blog focuses on preservation of the architectural and cultural heritage of St. Louis and on the demolition problem.
The article of interest ( http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2009/10/rehab-girls-seek-soulard-demolition.html ) was posted on Oct. 18, 2009 and notes that "Rehab Girls LLC" sought permission from the St. Louis Preservation Board, an arm of the Cultural Resource Office, to demolish 1927-9 S. 10th Street, an old neighborhood structure. The address of Rehab Girls LLC, according to State of Missouri records, is the same address as that of Rothschild Development Ltd, an owner of a large number of rental properties in Soulard, under the name of Rothschild Properties Soulard LLC. Ecology of Absence implied that Rehab Girls LLC was in fact closely linked to Rothschild Development Ltd.
As an aside, it should be noted that Rothschild Properties Soulard LLC does not have a particularly great reputation in Soulard, a reflection of the casual attitude displayed.
One property owner remarked that clean out of newly vacated apartments by Rothschild personnel often completely fills dumpsters, and other tenants, not seeming to know any better, then deposit their trash next to the dumpsters, resulting in a mess. "One time they deposited a recliner in a dumpster," this witness observed. This same person commented that their tenants are frequently noisy, drinking and partying until the police are called, and after, too.
Another property owner actually complained to Rothschild's office about some consistently noisy, disruptive tenants. The response from office personnel was: "It sounds to me that you need to display more neighborliness," which is secret code for "screw you, we really don’t care what our tenants do."
Another manifestation of their casualness is their attitude towards paying their real estate taxes. Rothschild Properties Soulard LLC did not pay 2008 real estate taxes on a number of its properties until sometime after the Dec. 31, 2008 deadline, according to posting dates on the web site of Gregory F. X. Daly, Collector of Revenue. If anybody wants to research this, begin at the Assessor’s Office site at http://stlcin.missouri.org/assessor/lookup.cfm.
Examples of late pays include:
1853 S. 9th (real estate tax payment for 2008 year posted on Collector of Revenue tax site on 10/08/2009),
1851 S. 10th (tax payment posted 10/08/2009),
900 Geyer (tax payment posted 10/08/2009),
1006 Geyer (tax payment posted 12/03/09),
1004 Geyer (tax payment posted 10/08/2009),
1005 Allen (tax payment posted 10/08/1009), etc. In all, as of 10/02/09 there were 22 Rothschild properties in Soulard in arrears. It is believed that all 2008 taxes have been paid by now.
Interestingly, note that real estate taxes on three properties owned by Kraiberg Properties LLC - registered agent: Robert W. Kraiberg, 1832 S. 8th Street - were also paid after the deadline. The tax bills were sent to the same address as that listed for Rothschild Properties Soulard LLC, which implies that Rothschild manages the properties. Examples:
1818 S. 8th (tax payment for 2008 posted on Collector of Revenue tax site on 12/10/2009),
1822 S. 8th (tax payment for 2008 year posted on 12/15/2009),
1824 S. 8th (tax payment for 2008 posted on 12/15/2009).
The Ecology of Absence blog posted the results of the request for the demolition permit in a story titled "Cultural Resources Office Stands Up for House in Soulard" ( http://ecoabsence.blogspot.com/2009/10/cultural-resources-office-stand-up-for.html ). Madame Chouteau certainly hopes that Rothschild, under the cover of Rehab Girls LLC, can do something with the building.
Showing posts with label Soulard Real Estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soulard Real Estate. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Thursday, December 17, 2009
City Licenses: Seeking Enlightenment
The following was recently e-mailed to Mr. Michael McMillan:
Please forward this e-mail to Mr. Michael McMillan, License Collector, City of St. Louis
Dear Mr. McMillan:
On Friday, Dec. 11, 2009 an article titled “Soulard: The Tax Haven Revisited” was posted on a blog labeled Gumbo, the Forum for Soulard at http://gumbotheforumforsoulard.blogspot.com/. The article contained information about bar/restaurants in the Soulard neighborhood whose property taxes are in arrears or were paid after the deadline. (Please note that this letter is also posted on the blog.)
My understanding is that businesses cannot open their doors and do business unless they have been granted a business license. I understand a business license cannot be issued if the business owes any taxes. Are these understandings correct, or have I misread the laws and ordinances of the City of St. Louis?
I have been approached by several business owners who have paid all their relevant taxes. They want to know why businesses which have not been good citizens - those which have not paid all their taxes - are being subsidized by those who have. They believe an unfair competitive advantage has been created. At what point is a business which has a defective business license - one which does not meet the requirements as defined by laws and ordinances of the City of St. Louis - going to be closed? Are the business licensing laws something to be taken casually here in St. Louis, by both elected officials and businesses?
There are some people in Soulard who feel that there are too many bars/restaurants in the neighborhood. They feel that the large number of these establishments contribute to quality of life problems. Examples of these quality of life issues include increased crime, trash, noise, traffic accidents, vandalism, and others. That some of these establishments remain open when it appears that they have defective licenses suggests favoritism and corruption in City of St. Louis government. They are expected to pay their taxes, their parking tickets, etc., etc., but bars/restaurants which degrade the living experience in the neighborhood seem to get a free pass. Could you please address this concept? Is there any concern by you that residents think favoritism and corruption is an ingredient in St. Louis city government?
I am most interested in hearing from you so that your responses can be published on the blog in order to set the record straight and to calm the fears and anger of some of my fellow citizens. Thank you in advance for your time.
ADDENDUM: The following was attached to the above message and re-sent to The Honorable Michael McMillan on January 4:
Dear Michael McMillan, License Collector, City of St. Louis
This is the second e-mail I have sent you. The first was sent on Dec. 17 to the e-mail address licensecollectorsoffice@stlouiscity.com, as directed by your page on the CIN/St. Louis web site. The e-mail seeks information about irregular business licenses in Soulard, as per a story published on the Soulard blog on Friday, Dec. 11, 2009 and titled Soulard: The Tax Haven Revisited. I have not received any answer from you. You may not have been able to find the story due to an error in the blog address. My apologies for the mistake. Thus, I am re-sending the first e-mail to mcmillanm@stlouiscity.com, a different address. I look forward to hearing from you.
Please forward this e-mail to Mr. Michael McMillan, License Collector, City of St. Louis
Dear Mr. McMillan:
On Friday, Dec. 11, 2009 an article titled “Soulard: The Tax Haven Revisited” was posted on a blog labeled Gumbo, the Forum for Soulard at http://gumbotheforumforsoulard.blogspot.com/. The article contained information about bar/restaurants in the Soulard neighborhood whose property taxes are in arrears or were paid after the deadline. (Please note that this letter is also posted on the blog.)
My understanding is that businesses cannot open their doors and do business unless they have been granted a business license. I understand a business license cannot be issued if the business owes any taxes. Are these understandings correct, or have I misread the laws and ordinances of the City of St. Louis?
I have been approached by several business owners who have paid all their relevant taxes. They want to know why businesses which have not been good citizens - those which have not paid all their taxes - are being subsidized by those who have. They believe an unfair competitive advantage has been created. At what point is a business which has a defective business license - one which does not meet the requirements as defined by laws and ordinances of the City of St. Louis - going to be closed? Are the business licensing laws something to be taken casually here in St. Louis, by both elected officials and businesses?
There are some people in Soulard who feel that there are too many bars/restaurants in the neighborhood. They feel that the large number of these establishments contribute to quality of life problems. Examples of these quality of life issues include increased crime, trash, noise, traffic accidents, vandalism, and others. That some of these establishments remain open when it appears that they have defective licenses suggests favoritism and corruption in City of St. Louis government. They are expected to pay their taxes, their parking tickets, etc., etc., but bars/restaurants which degrade the living experience in the neighborhood seem to get a free pass. Could you please address this concept? Is there any concern by you that residents think favoritism and corruption is an ingredient in St. Louis city government?
I am most interested in hearing from you so that your responses can be published on the blog in order to set the record straight and to calm the fears and anger of some of my fellow citizens. Thank you in advance for your time.
ADDENDUM: The following was attached to the above message and re-sent to The Honorable Michael McMillan on January 4:
Dear Michael McMillan, License Collector, City of St. Louis
This is the second e-mail I have sent you. The first was sent on Dec. 17 to the e-mail address licensecollectorsoffice@stlouiscity.com, as directed by your page on the CIN/St. Louis web site. The e-mail seeks information about irregular business licenses in Soulard, as per a story published on the Soulard blog on Friday, Dec. 11, 2009 and titled Soulard: The Tax Haven Revisited. I have not received any answer from you. You may not have been able to find the story due to an error in the blog address. My apologies for the mistake. Thus, I am re-sending the first e-mail to mcmillanm@stlouiscity.com, a different address. I look forward to hearing from you.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Too Many Bars in Soulard? When Did That Happen?
A friend of mine moved to St. Louis from California almost two years ago. She purchased a home in the Lafayette Square Historic District. One day I asked her if she had considered the Soulard neighborhood while shopping for a home to buy. She had, but when she questioned her real estate agent about Soulard, the agent said that there were too many bars there.
Madame Chouteau wishes to thank that real estate agent for doing his job. Soulard has many charms. The Soulard Farmers’ Market, the European flavor of the architecture, the convenience of the neighborhood, and other elements are tremendous assets for an area that was dismissed as a slum and slated for demolition as recently as the early 1970's. However, the neighborhood recognizes that it does not benefit from people moving in and then discovering an aversion to bars and bar byproducts: noise, litter, vandalism, drunkenness and other quality of life issues. People should make decisions based on understanding the positives and negatives.
The need to confront reality is not concealed by Soulard residents. In the Sunday, August 29, 2004 issue ("News Watch: Issues and Analysis," Section B, page 1) of the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" there was a very apt quote: "Anyone who lives in Soulard isn’t going to be anti-bar. You wouldn’t move here if you were." This excellent quip (or slap in the face, if you will) for Soulard residents (and potential residents) is attributed to "Gary Siddens of the Soulard Restoration Group." The context of the quote was a debate resulting from an "effort to limit the proliferation of nightspots in the neighborhood," according to the newspaper.
Madame Chouteau remembers talking with somebody who thought Mardi Gras was too declasse. This lady had gone door-to-door with a petition, trying to enlist support for controlling (or limiting) the main event, the Grand Parade, as it is known. At one rental unit, a woman answered the door. After learning the purpose of the petition, the woman replied: "I can’t sign that, I’m a drinker." And we know another family who bought a house in Soulard. Their proud explanation was: "We were down here partying all the time, so we thought we might just as well move to Soulard."
In the early 1970's, Soulard was a slum, the result of lack of insight and of attention during the watch of Alderman Raymond Leisure. Then things started to look up, as so-called "urban pioneers" discovered the area and started turning it into a residential-oriented historic district. Just when things started to look their brightest, Soulard turned again. It was sidetracked, turned into an entertainment district whose foundation is a potemkin Mardi Gras.
This peculiar and ugly celebration - which symbolizes the difficulty of Soulard (and of St. Louis) to envision a future - and the growth in the number of bars and liquor outlets (and the designation of Soulard as an entertainment district) has occurred on the watch of Seventh Ward Alderperson Phyllis Young. The alteration in the personality of Soulard has been ignored by the clueless neighborhood organization, the Soulard Restoration Group, and it has been spurred by the venality of liquor purveyors who have been given a free reign.
This course change, which caters to the lowest common denominator of neighborhood interests, has just happened, like a rudderless ship foundering on the rocks. The metamorphosis harks back to the visionless leadership provided during the years of Raymond Leisure.
Madame Chouteau thanks Alderperson Young and her supporters and handlers for her governance, for looking out for the interests of the businesses in Soulard and for helping turn the neighborhood into the setting for an annual, mirthless bacchanal and for the year-around antics of people devoid of any respect for Soulard or themselves. And Madame Chouteau hopes that real estate agents will continue to inform their clients of the existing reality in Soulard. After all, if this is as good as it gets, then new arrivals and the unwary need to be informed.
Madame Chouteau wishes to thank that real estate agent for doing his job. Soulard has many charms. The Soulard Farmers’ Market, the European flavor of the architecture, the convenience of the neighborhood, and other elements are tremendous assets for an area that was dismissed as a slum and slated for demolition as recently as the early 1970's. However, the neighborhood recognizes that it does not benefit from people moving in and then discovering an aversion to bars and bar byproducts: noise, litter, vandalism, drunkenness and other quality of life issues. People should make decisions based on understanding the positives and negatives.
The need to confront reality is not concealed by Soulard residents. In the Sunday, August 29, 2004 issue ("News Watch: Issues and Analysis," Section B, page 1) of the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch" there was a very apt quote: "Anyone who lives in Soulard isn’t going to be anti-bar. You wouldn’t move here if you were." This excellent quip (or slap in the face, if you will) for Soulard residents (and potential residents) is attributed to "Gary Siddens of the Soulard Restoration Group." The context of the quote was a debate resulting from an "effort to limit the proliferation of nightspots in the neighborhood," according to the newspaper.
Madame Chouteau remembers talking with somebody who thought Mardi Gras was too declasse. This lady had gone door-to-door with a petition, trying to enlist support for controlling (or limiting) the main event, the Grand Parade, as it is known. At one rental unit, a woman answered the door. After learning the purpose of the petition, the woman replied: "I can’t sign that, I’m a drinker." And we know another family who bought a house in Soulard. Their proud explanation was: "We were down here partying all the time, so we thought we might just as well move to Soulard."
In the early 1970's, Soulard was a slum, the result of lack of insight and of attention during the watch of Alderman Raymond Leisure. Then things started to look up, as so-called "urban pioneers" discovered the area and started turning it into a residential-oriented historic district. Just when things started to look their brightest, Soulard turned again. It was sidetracked, turned into an entertainment district whose foundation is a potemkin Mardi Gras.
This peculiar and ugly celebration - which symbolizes the difficulty of Soulard (and of St. Louis) to envision a future - and the growth in the number of bars and liquor outlets (and the designation of Soulard as an entertainment district) has occurred on the watch of Seventh Ward Alderperson Phyllis Young. The alteration in the personality of Soulard has been ignored by the clueless neighborhood organization, the Soulard Restoration Group, and it has been spurred by the venality of liquor purveyors who have been given a free reign.
This course change, which caters to the lowest common denominator of neighborhood interests, has just happened, like a rudderless ship foundering on the rocks. The metamorphosis harks back to the visionless leadership provided during the years of Raymond Leisure.
Madame Chouteau thanks Alderperson Young and her supporters and handlers for her governance, for looking out for the interests of the businesses in Soulard and for helping turn the neighborhood into the setting for an annual, mirthless bacchanal and for the year-around antics of people devoid of any respect for Soulard or themselves. And Madame Chouteau hopes that real estate agents will continue to inform their clients of the existing reality in Soulard. After all, if this is as good as it gets, then new arrivals and the unwary need to be informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
